It's official: Levada is new doctrinal watchdog!

  • Thread starter Thread starter UKcatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eddie and John, forgive me, but I’m not clear what you mean. Are you saying that you don’t believe BXVI is conservative and that he will continue what you believe to be the non-conservative steps taken by JPII? Or do I have this terribly twisted around? Thanks.
 
40.png
jlw:
I’m confused. Not thrilled here in Portland. We shall see.
Click to expand...
Trust the Pope.
 
A few weeks ago, Benedict could do no wrong.

He’s the one! Watch out, everyone, the Panzer is rolling! Smack 'em down, Papa Bene! Etc.

So now, it’s changed to “What’s with B16? He should know better than to appoint a liberal.” “Is B16 going leftward?” “What’s gotten into the man???”

If you were so enthusiastic to have him as Pope, let him be Pope. I won’t question his appointments - he’s my Pope and pastor. Let him run the Vatican as he sees fit.
 
Other Eric:
I could go on, but I think you get the point. A Google search seems to indicate that Archbishop Levada is nothing other than strictly orthodox. Again I ask whether apprehension over his appointment is based upon more than his being the archbishop of San Francisco. A link to anything would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Or, How about this one?

sffaith.com/ed/articles/1999/0399gm2.htm

…Pope John Paul II asked bishops again this last year to show “pastoral attention” to Catholics attached to the Latin Mass. But in San Francisco the Latin Mass is forbidden. The reason: San Francisco Archbishop William Levada refuses to grant the Pope’s indult.

Disobeying the Pope and turning his back on tradition, just the man for the CDF!
 
Sarah Jane:
This Friday the 13th is the feast of Our Lady of Fatima.
Click to expand...
Of coarse. As well as the 24th anniversay of the ASSASINATION attempt on Pope John Paul II (RIP).
 
40.png
Lurch104:
Or, How about this one?

sffaith.com/ed/articles/1999/0399gm2.htm

…Pope John Paul II asked bishops again this last year to show “pastoral attention” to Catholics attached to the Latin Mass. But in San Francisco the Latin Mass is forbidden. The reason: San Francisco Archbishop William Levada refuses to grant the Pope’s indult.

Disobeying the Pope and turning his back on tradition, just the man for the CDF!
Click to expand...
Not to mention allowing Chinese Communist Priests to opperate in his diocese.
 
Looking oky dokey to me: 👍

sfarchdiocese.org/EucharistResources.html

**Many parishes in the Archdiocese have times of Eucharistic Adoration, concluded by Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. I encourage every parish to provide this devotion, at least once a month, perhaps on the first Friday. I have recommended the above-mentioned “mystagogical catechesis” on the Eucharist for the Easter season in the context of an hour of Eucharistic Adoration in order to provide a model for such devotions; listening to catechetical instruction on the Eucharist in the context of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament seems to me a uniquely appropriate means of fostering a richer understanding of and devotion to the Eucharist in our local church. **

sfarchdiocese.org/homilies/life-jubilee.html

**By making a “woman’s right to choose” the trump card in every election, our country has made freedom as license (to do whatever I want) the focus of civic life. Such a public stance will not only not contribute to forming virtuous people whose consciences know which choices are good and which are bad, but it can positively undermine the efforts of the best-intentioned among us to provide the common moral vision without which a society like ours cannot long endure. **

sfarchdiocese.org/ablreligiousdiscourse.html

**What underlies much religious discourse today, however, as the recent lively discussion about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s remarks on faith and morality in American politics illustrates, is that for some people religion can only be “tolerated” if it is private. It used to be that any public appeal to religion was considered divisive, presumptively preferring one’s own religion over another’s. But in Lieberman’s case, even a generic appeal to God and morality has proved offensive to some, since they feel left out. It is as if the old saw “One religion is as good as another” has now got to be “No religion is as good as another”!

But, indeed, religion has always provided the moral grounding and social conscience for the American vision, and in my view attempts to privatize it should be firmly rejected as undermining still further the importance of religious faith for the pursuit of virtue in personal and public life, the absence of which cannot but undermine our American culture and institutions. Furthermore, such a tendency toward privatization itself fundamentally skews and tends to violate the First Amendment guarantees of American constitutional law.**

sfarchdiocese.org/statements/index.html

**Surely Dulles is right when he says that every Christian must “come to terms with the current objections to religious faith and weigh the legitimacy and rationality of his own commitment.” (p. xviii) As Pope John Paul has illustrated in his Encyclical Letter “Faith and Reason,” there are many reasons why the dialogue between faith and reason, between theology and philosophy, is more urgent than ever, in view of the profound skepticism about truth that marks contemporary thought. As he says, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth (no. 1). His encyclical is both an invitation and a challenge, especially to Catholic universities. And it is an implicit invitation to renew the perennial task of apologetics. **
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Of coarse. As well as the 24th anniversay of the assignation attempt on Pope John Paul II (RIP).
Click to expand...
Oy, Eddie! We don’t pay attention to people’s misspellings, but yours was a riot! An assignation is a secret meeting with one’s mistress or lover. What Italian babe made that attempt on JPII?! 🙂

I think you meant assassination.
 
40.png
Richardols:
If you were so enthusiastic to have him as Pope, let him be Pope. I won’t question his appointments - he’s my Pope and pastor. Let him run the Vatican as he sees fit.
Click to expand...
I agree (I think for the 3rd time) with Richardols.
 
Other Eric:
I could go on, but I think you get the point. A Google search seems to indicate that Archbishop Levada is nothing other than strictly orthodox. Again I ask whether apprehension over his appointment is based upon more than his being the archbishop of San Francisco. A link to anything would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
And finally, the best yet!!

cruxnews.com/ftm/ftm-26march04.html

…"As part of a secret settlement with a whistle-blower priest authorized by San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada more than a year ago, the Church acknowledged, however grudgingly, that Fr. John Conley had acted properly in reporting to police a fellow cleric whom he had suspected of sexually abusing an altar boy.

"‘The archdiocese and Father Conley have agreed that Father Conley was right in what he did in reporting the incident to police,’ read a Church statement issued in December 2002. It coincided with the settlement of a lawsuit in which Conley claimed Levada unfairly removed him from active ministry for accusing the pastor of a Burlingame church, Fr. James Aylward, of misconduct. ‘As subsequent revelations confirmed,’ the statement concluded, 'Fr. Conley’s instincts regarding the matter [were] correct.'

Not only does he protect, hide, and reassign a pedophile priest. He punishes a faithful priest who blows the whistle on the abuse. And this is to be the protector of the faith?
 
Not only does he protect, hide, and reassign a pedophile priest. He punishes a faithful priest who blows the whistle on the abuse. And this is to be the protector of the faith?
Click to expand...
not a pedophile, but a homosexual priest. the problem is homosexuality. either way, if we can’t trust benedict xvi, who can we? i think we should just trust the pope on this one but he doesn’t appear to be the best choice.
 
Our solution is not without its critics,…But to those like my local Catholic critic who say that we implicitly give recognition to domestic partnerships by not excluding them from benefits, I must demur. Under our plan, an employee may indeed elect to designate another member of the household to receive benefits. We would know no more or no less about the employee’s relationship with that person than we typically know about a designated life insurance beneficiary. What we have done is to prohibit local government from forcing our Catholic agencies to create internal policies that recognize domestic partnerships as a category equivalent to marriage. I agree with moral theologians like William May who see no compromise of Catholic moral principle in this practice.
Click to expand...
i guess what the church decided to do in san francisco is to close your eyes to the real issue which is an attack on traditional marriage. while technically, the church isn’t doing anything wrong, they are implicitly supporting homosexual unions by giving benefits normally reserved to married couples and dependents.

this is going to hurt marriage because now people will have less of a reason to get married if they can receive the same benefits.
 
I have complete faith and trust in our Holy Father’s ability to do his job and to appoint the right man for the job. Rather than be critical of the Holy Father or Archbishop Levada during this critical time for the Church, we should pray for both of them.
 
oat soda:
i guess what the church decided to do in san francisco is to close your eyes to the real issue which is an attack on traditional marriage. while technically, the church isn’t doing anything wrong, they are implicitly supporting homosexual unions by giving benefits normally reserved to married couples and dependents.

this is going to hurt marriage because now people will have less of a reason to get married if they can receive the same benefits.
Click to expand...
According to Fidei Defensor :

“The case was taken to the California State Supreme Court, where the court unfortunately ruled against the Archdiocese. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and I haven’t been aware of any rulings by the USSC on this issue yet.”

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=659215&postcount=10
 
40.png
Lurch104:
And finally, the best yet!!

cruxnews.com/ftm/ftm-26march04.html

…"As part of a secret settlement with a whistle-blower priest authorized by San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada more than a year ago, the Church acknowledged, however grudgingly, that Fr. John Conley had acted properly in reporting to police a fellow cleric whom he had suspected of sexually abusing an altar boy.

"‘The archdiocese and Father Conley have agreed that Father Conley was right in what he did in reporting the incident to police,’ read a Church statement issued in December 2002. It coincided with the settlement of a lawsuit in which Conley claimed Levada unfairly removed him from active ministry for accusing the pastor of a Burlingame church, Fr. James Aylward, of misconduct. ‘As subsequent revelations confirmed,’ the statement concluded, 'Fr. Conley’s instincts regarding the matter [were] correct.'

Not only does he protect, hide, and reassign a pedophile priest. He punishes a faithful priest who blows the whistle on the abuse. And this is to be the protector of the faith?
Click to expand...
There is much missing information in your criticisms. Your summations can not be validated based on the limited evidence you have presented. To me, the Pope’s judgement is much stronger than what you have presented.
 
40.png
Brad:
There is much missing information in your criticisms. Your summations can not be validated based on the limited evidence you have presented. To me, the Pope’s judgement is much stronger than what you have presented.
Click to expand...
Uh…I don’t even know what to say to that. It is undisputed that he protected a a priest who admitted to abusing a 15 year year old boy. It was proven in court, admitted by the diocese. What more do you want? So you are ok with pedophiles and those who protect them? Did you evev read the links I had posted? I did not take anything out of context. One link was the Bishop’s own press release. I may just be some joe-schmoe, but I wouldn’t cover up a child rape to protect anyone or ainstitution’s reputation.

Blind trust in God, I agree. Blind trust in a human, not me. There have been bad clergy, bishops, and even popes over the ages. I give B16 the benefit of the doubt, but this appointment does not pass the smell test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top